By the way, I think all of this started because I took some slight offense to the fact that Charles Hang said that the general impression towards the GAC tournament questions were negative. That was not the case whatsoever.

I apologize if you took offense to my statement, so let me rephrase it. The only team I personally played at GACs other than you was Francis Howell High School. Francis Howell High School's players (and their coach) agreed with my criticisms of Questions Galore's questions. So did the moderators in our match (one of whom compared QG to the MAP testing sample questions, which apparently only consist of the questions rejected for actual MAP use.

FZW Coach wrote:

...of banning the eight of us who supported Questions Galore (I may have voted against this one . . . I know there were a few times when I was the only one who voted against something . . . actually, I think it was the rule where you do not have to repeat the entire question . . the vote was 7 - 1 on that one).

What exactly do you mean by "supported Questions Galore?" Do you mean that you all acquiesced to them (which is understandable, given that they were the only bid), or do you mean that you personally did not feel as if there was a problem with making QG the state provider? If the latter, that seems to contradict what you've said previously about how you felt that QG represented "a step back" (your words) for Missouri Quiz Bowl.

Alternatively, are you paraphrasing Sean's feelings on the topic--as in he felt that you 8 supported QG?

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004Posts: 6216Location: In between the bright lights and the far unlit unknown (aka Johnson County, KS)

Questions Galore comparison thread #1234567890

This post contains overall stats for the 2004-2008 state tournaments, as well as PPG comparisons for a bunch of known tournaments in MSHSAA format. However, keep in mind that basing arguments that one provider is better than another exclusively on scores is a BAD idea, as it does not take into account question quality, that games involved different teams from different years, tournaments with different field strength, etc., so this DOES NOT mean that the Avery 2006 State set is 35% better than the Lexington 2009 set, etc. This data is most accurately viewed as simply an indication of how well participating teams did on a particular set.

<hr />Large School Team PPG's in descending order:305.63 (2009 UMR Spring tournament; Class 3 teams were in small school division)304.43 (2007 UMR Spring tournament; some Class 3 teams were in small schools)304.22 (2008 STATE Pickrell)299.22 (2005 STATE Avery)286.64 (2004 STATE Straight A)282.60 (2008 UMR Spring tournament; some Class 3 teams were in small schools)270.10 (2005 UMR Spring tournament; some Class 3 teams were in small schools)259.92 (2007 STATE Avery)259.78 (2006 UMR Spring tournament; some, if not all, Class 3 teams were in small schools)245.32 (2009 STATE QG)234.07 (2006 STATE Avery)233.37 (2009 Knob Noster on Question Bank, average of 11 large schools in combined field also containing 9 small schools)217.31 (2009 GAC tournament)174.35 (2009 Lexington tournament; some Class 3 teams were in small school division)

<hr />EDIT: Added 2007 and 2008 data. Also, just remembered that the [hr] tag exists, and is a much more convenient divider than a bunch of "=" characters in a row

Edit again: 2004 and 2005 added. Also added PPGs from all other UMR tournaments for additional comparison. And Knob Noster.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum